04 December 2013 11:24 AM

An Evening with Professor Self

Here are a few all too brief words about one of the two debates I attended last week – a discussion about the status of Christianity in England, with Will Self, at t Brunel University in Uxbridge. ( Later, I hope to say a few words about a debate I had in Manchester, also about religion, and to say a few things about P.D.James, and her book ‘An Unsuitable Job for a Woman’, and about the recent film ‘Philomena’, and the book on which it is loosely based ‘The Lost Child of Philomena Lee’ by Martin Sixsmith. I have one last debate to do before the end of the year, after which I shall probably be taking on fewer speaking engagements for a while. Enjoyable as they are, they eat time and energy, and are easier to accept, breezily, in June than to fulfil months later when your diary has filled up with other things).

I think the people who attended our Brunel debate largely enjoyed it, as it was a pretty thoughtful exchange between two articulate people. Mr Self (or Professor Self as he is up there) was particularly exercised about ‘Faith Schools’, as modern radicals always are, seeing them as in some way morally wrong. I’m fairly sure that this will be the main front on which the secularists will advance in coming years. The ordinary state schools have over the past 70 years marginalised or removed most traces of Christianity *as a faith* rather than as one of a number of bizarre anthropological curiosities.

This is in fact a breach of an agreement made at the time, but it goes completely unpunished, even though it quite often involves direct defiance of statute law. I suspect that many of the church schools have reduced it to the very minimum, as they come under increasing pressure to dilute their religious nature. That pressure, dressed up as a war on privilege, and combined with a supposed concern to prevent ‘indoctrination’ of the young in ancient follies, will now increase. The Church of England will probably not fight it that hard. I suspect it sees its formal bureaucratic grip on a large minority of schools as being more important than the actual religious upbringing of the young. Some of its prelates have made remarkably weak and confused statements on this lately. The Roman Catholics may possibly be tougher. But in the end, a confrontation is certain between Christian teaching on such things as marriage, and the equality and diversity agenda promoted by the National Curriculum through personal Health and Social Education.

I said that I was quite happy to see state-backed schools of any faith, if there was a demand for them. Professor Self claimed to doubt my sincerity on Islamic schools, which he is welcome to do, but I assure him that it is genuine. I would very much favour the setting up of actively atheist schools as well, if there is sufficient demand. I would very much like to see this strange, shy, reticent yet aggressive creed taught as a belief and celebrated with Godless singing at morning assembly. We would see how they got on. Perhaps parents from all over the neighbourhood would clamour for places, and the egalitarians would complain that Atheist schools had too low a proportion of pupils receiving free school meals.

An experiment on these lines would test the other question I couldn’t ( as I recall) get Professor Self to answer – namely – what is the source of authority in schools, or anywhere else, once you have abandoned adherence to Christianity? In schools this is particularly important, as the question arises of where the individual teacher’s authority comes from, how the subjects for instruction are selected and how they are approached, as well as the purpose for which education is intended. Most people never think about this, and I suspect this is one of the reasons why secularised British state schools are often so bad, whereas their private rivals, which (so far) retain quite a lot of the character given to them by their largely religious founders, are not.

Despite this, Professor Self alleged that I was ‘intolerant’. I repeatedly challenged him to justify this accusation, but it’s my recollection that he never did. I also teased him for his position of ‘radical agnosticism’, saying that it was an oxymoron much like ‘razor-sharp sponge’, which did not go down well. I would have liked to stay behind and hammer it out at the bar, but alas, I had a pressing engagement elsewhere – as I do now.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

beatpoet - so sorry. As I've often said I'm a bit absentminded. Apologize for writing your name instead of mine as the "Absender".

Peter Preston - your presumption was quite correct. (Only it was my own, not a clerical, error.) - I wish you a peaceful and pleasant Christmas too and I shall continue to read your comments, but I think it's better if I don't respond. One day perhaps ...

Ariel - I'm happy that you have found comfort in your faith. I'm sure you have your good reasons for believing, and I'm the last person that would wish to criticize you for it.

I think you put it quite nicely - we all (presumably) see more or less the same things, yet different people "experience them" differently - like your witnesses. That's one reason why we are all so different in what we believe or don't believe. - (I wish you a merry Christmas too!)

I have exchanged comments in the past with contributor beatpoet and what is written here does not strike me as that gentleman's style. Presuming therefore that some clerical error is responsable for the confusion, I take it that this text was actually written by contributor bunker. If I am mistaken in doing that, I beg pardon for my presumption.

It saddens me too, sir, that you are saddened and I do of course withdraw any comment of mine that may have saddened you, particularly at this season of "peace on earth to men of good will" - a social class to which we both, I'm sure, belong.

Clearly I seem to have - unintentionally, I hope I need hardly say - given offence and so in order not to do so again may I suggest that perhaps it might be better, if we neither of us read the other's contributions hereafter.

Thank you anyway for our correspondence, sir, so far on various matters and may I repeat my sincere wish that you and your family have an enjoyable Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

beatpoet - in my exasperation I used the phrase "a mild bout of hysteria". Perhaps that was little too drastic, and I withdraw it - with regret. Instead I'd like to say "a mild bout of behaviour exhibiting excessive emotion".

He writes: "I did not promise to end any discussions." Promise? Who said anything about a promise? As I rightly said, I *had the impression* that we were both happy to end the discussion. Obviously this is not the case. Peter Preston resumes it.

In what to me appears to be the outcome of a mild bout of hysteria, he now charges me with "advancing sweeping assertions" for which I "seem to me to lack any normal human authority"(!).

Good grief! What is he going on about now? I can do no more than state my opinions, politely and clearly. Even if my opinions distress him, I cannot understand - or accept - this kind of reaction.

And as for sweeping statements, the statement that God created the universe is far more sweeping that anything I have ever said. (And that's just one example of the sweeping statements I hear every day, with or without "human authority.)

Peter Preston (seriously!) asks whether it had occurred to me that Marx and Plato were dead!! - Yes, it had. As if that makes any difference to the point I made in my comment to you.

He than asks whether I'm suggesting "that those gentlemen were equally immune to such questions, while they were alive?" - No, of course I'm not suggesting that.. What a ridiculous question.

I prefer straightforward, ingenuous argument. Regrettably, beatpoet, I think it is advisable for me to avoid any futher direct discussion with Peter Preston if this is the sort of response I can expect.

Wondering if anyone is still following this thread. Sad I missed it befor. If so here is my ten pennerth, for what its worth. Bunker, no one can convince anyone of God's existance. But there is the power of testimony. In Beatpoets work ( if you will allow me?) Well I hope you dont mind. Its I think something like this. Everynow and then he will nead witnesses to a crime or an accident or something like.

I was on a bus one day and witnessed a quite nasty accident where a lady fell over and hurt her self badly. The bus driver was badly shaken and passengers were asked to give statements as to what had happened.

I heard at least three people speaking and their 'experience' at what had happened were quite different to what I thought I had seen. It was quite something and I will never be able to fathm how people in authority in such situations determin who is telling the 'truth' as I suspect we all 'thought' we were. Or for all I know someone was deliberately lying.

I dont know how it works but its something to do with being 'convicted' . Presumably a well seasoned coppa 'knows' when he is hearing a truthful testimony. For the court and legal process 'evidence' must be found and what have you as 'inner tuitions' can be gravely mistaken, if what the witness believes the saw, was based on a false belief. ( gets complicated doesnt it?) Thats in the 'natural' world.

In matters of spirit, its a different matter. Evidence is entirely different and seen in the transformation of an otherwise 'difficult' life. Or a 'miricle' of some other kind, an 'overcomming' of an addiction, or fear or a healling of an illness. etc. All these sort of things are I guess something that someone like Paul P might say 'subjective' experiences and therefor subject to 'interpretation'. ie She would have got better anyway, eventually. That sort of thing.

My own obvious belief is that God dragged me out of complete and utter darkness where I had no hope. No life, and no reason to carry on. And He changed things...

"If people read the works of, say, Marx or Plato, it is pointless to ignore what they say. And instead simply ask how they know (or are able to know) that what they say is true. - If that happened, no discussion about their ideas would ensue. - Do you not see my point?"

Oh dear! Here we go again.

No sir, I do not see your point. I wished you a happy Christmas; I did not promise to end any discussions, if you persist in advancing sweeping assertions for which you seem to me to lack any mormal human authority.

Has it not occurred to you, sir, that both Marx and Plato happen to be no longer with us and that perhaps that is one of the reasons why people of today refrain from asking them the 'pointless' questions you mention?

Are you suggesting that those gentlemen were equally immune to such questions, while they were alive?

"What will it take for me to persuade you to accept that I'm being serious when I say that I thought you had some method of calculating the probability of ghosts?"

If you expect me to take that seriously then you oblige me to accept that you take seriously the idea of ghosts. Since I don't accept the latter you cannot persuade me of the former.

The probability of anything you care to imagine, be it Diana lunching with Elvis on the planet Vulcan or the ghost of Anne Boleyn carrying her own head, I can place at the extreme end of improbability. In fact the ridiculousness of the context allows me to place the probability of these events at zero. That's how I calculate it. Withdraw the context from within the pale of absurdity and sensible probabilities can be spoken of.

"Very educational for someone who has absolutely no background, and little interest in, science, like me"

A disappointing revelation. I urge you to become interested in science at once. What else is there worth pondering other than the natural world and man's place in it? What on earth do you talk about over dinner?

"Am I not correct in stating that science cannot explain everything? In other words, science is not the be all and end all, is it?"

Science is a dynamic process of investigation and discovery. At no time is it, or likely will it ever be, a "be all and end all". As regards 'not explaining everything', science certainly doesn't explain everything at the moment, and while science at both sub atomic and cosmological scales at present technology levels is nudging into limits, those limits will be pushed forward in the future. I doubt that the profound extant mysteries will be solved in our lifetimes, especially the profoundly mysterious consciousness, but the small and large scales will be pushed as long as there are scientists to push them.

One thing, though, should be abundantly clear. Progress in our understanding of the natural world, limited though it is by instrumentation, and not least of all by money, will not be made through readings from holy books. Even to consider the two 'methodologies' (only one of them is in fact a methodology) in the same paragraph is to compare the proverbial chalk with the proverbial cheese.

If there is a slight worry on the scientific horizon it is the temptation to let the mathematics do the talking and empiricism take second place, or no place at all. This is simply because at small scales we lack the machines energetic enough to investigate much further, and at large scales to have the instrumented reach in our era. Call it a scientific faith if you like, but the temptation to 'believe' the mathematics as a revealed truth might become too tempting to overcome for some scientists. In fact it is experiment, i.e. nature itself, which reveals the truth.

beatpoet - kind of you to try and help. But if you read my last comment (and I have the impression that both Mr Preston and I are happy to end our discussion) you will, I hope, see the point I've been trying to make. - But to make it even clearer, here's an analogy.

If people read the works of, say, Marx or Plato, it is pointless to ignore what they say. And instead simply ask how they know (or are able to know) that what they say is true. - If that happened, no discussion about their ideas would ensue. - Do you not see my point?

@ Mr. Bunker - apologies for intruding on your conversation with Mr. Preston, but this is becoming almost painful to read. Please, do let me try to assist. I think, in short (and apologies to Mr. Preston if I'm misrepresenting him), what the gentleman is asking is "how do you know (indeed, how can you know) that nobody *knows* God exists?" If you do actually *know*, then how do you *know*? How have you obtained such knowledge?

Please note the emphasis on the word "know" and not the word "believe", for example.

I mean, it may well be the case that you cannot *understand* how anybody *knows* the answer to this question.

If so, this is no disgrace. I would add that I, too, am in a similar state of ignorance.

@ Paul P - apologies for my tardy response to your post. It slipped my mind, due to this thread having been archived. I'll try to respond to your points. Hopefully, you're still around.

First off, I can confirm this - "Perhaps you mean 'my position' that the supernatural is ridiculous." Yes, this is what I meant. I never meant to suggest your position is ridiculous. I don't think it is.

Secondly, I'm going to have to stop using the word "genuinely". It seems the more I do this, the more you think I'm larking around. What will it take for me to persuade you to accept that I'm being serious when I say that I thought you had some method of calculating the probability of ghosts? Like, perhaps, how you might calculate the probability of rolling a six when you throw a dice. You don't seem to have such a method.

Third, it was good of you to explain the different "tiers" (for want of a better word) of science, i.e, proposals, hypotheses, theories and laws. Each requiring different burdens of proof, if I understand you. Very educational for someone who has absolutely no background, and little interest in, science, like me (I really do mean this in all sincerity, sir). But you then go on to prove my point -

"To the extent that the universe is now defined in science....."

Well, exactly! The whole argument will be restricted to one of what science can define.

Am I not correct in stating that science cannot explain everything? In other words, science is not the be all and end all, is it?

Haven't you all noticed yet that Paul P has no what he is talking about on philosophical and religious matters? If you observe his comments you quickly see his pontifications are very often based on seeming random premises arranged into an arbitrary likeness of an argument.

His base position is just question begging assertions that the scientific method explains all that can be explained or known, but struggle as you might, you will never get him to properly support this position.

It is all rather tedious really, considering the sheer volume he contributes on these topics and the sheer lack any merit or even any sense in almost all he contributes on them.

"No, Peter Preston, I'm not mistaken at all. Must I quote you again: You wrote:

"Contributor bunkers says: 'Well, we are all agnostic. None of us knows whether there's a God...'"

And you then asked: "Are you quite certain that you are not stating here what you simply don't know, sir?"

Now you have the nerve to say "The question was precisely about what you had written."

Well, it surely isn't a matter of 'nerve' to ask someone who makes assertions which are beyond the reach of logical reasoning, such as "we are all agnostic. None of us knows whether there's a God..." by what steps of the intellect he may have reached those 'take my word for it' conclusions?
I have no wish to 'exasperate' you, sir, but as long as you keep on uttering wildly sweeping assertions for which you seem to me to lack any kind of credible authority, it is surely only fair that I be permitted to seek what reasons may lie behind those conclusions of yours and, if none are forthcoming, to point out the dialectical weakness of those conclusions.

To question the reasoning of someone's assertions does not impose upon the questioner any necessity to refute those assertions. It is for those making the assertions in the first place to defend them, if they can, and not for those seeking explanations of them to offer alternative assertions.

If someone tells me that 9 x 4 equals 32, I am surely at liberty either to ask him how he works that out or simply to tell him that he is wrong without offering an alternative figure as an answer.

No, Peter Preston, I'm not mistaken at all. Must I quote you again: You wrote:

"Contributor bunkers says: 'Well, we are all agnostic. None of us knows whether there's a God...'"

And you then asked: "Are you quite certain that you are not stating here what you simply don't know, sir?"

Now you have the nerve to say "The question was precisely about what you had written."

No, your question was certainly NOT about what I had written, (namely whether we are all agnostic or if anyone knows there's a God).

Instead - as all contributors can see for themselves - your question was simply about whether I was "quite certain"!

A different matter entirely and a capital "red herring"!

Indeed, in the whole discussion you made no attempt (as far as I remember) to express any argument for or against the substance of "what I had written". On the contrary, you cleverly diverted attention from it.

"I genuinely thought you had some method of calculating the probability of the existence of ghosts."

Before I answer this you will have to extract your tongue buried deeply in your mischievous cheek.

"Any account of a supernatural experience I relate to you will be met with ridicule."

Almost certainly. But don't knock ridicule. In fact don't leave home without it. The world would be a much healthier and peaceful place, intellectually and physically, if more ridicule were brought to bear.

"We'll then, probably, go down the path of "science doesn't require this as an explanation" or "science hasn't uncovered any evidence of this." And such like."

I have to correct you here. In science there are proposals, hypotheses and theories - and laws of course. A proposal can be a guess - the source of a lot of seminal ideas in science. It might be considered plausible. An hypothesis ought to have at least a smidgen of evidence to be taken seriously. A theory has so much evidence in its support that it becomes synonymous with 'that's very probably how it happens'. A law is a mathematical description of a compellingly supported theory.

'Explanations' should be avoided and are best left to the religious. Thus God is the 'best explanation' for the beginning of the universe and that sort of thing. The lights in the night sky zooming off at great speed could be 'explained' by flying saucers. The strange column of illuminated mist floating across the bottom of my garden could be 'explained' by my having seen a ghost. And so on. You see what I'm saying.

On science not having produced evidence of ghosts; that is true. But of course, and as has been stated many, many times, this is not evidence of the non-existence of ghosts.

"So, short of me carrying out a laboratory experiment or something of that nature, I really don't see what would lead you to reconsider your "plainly ridiculous" position?"

You've lost me. Why is 'my position' plainly ridiculous? Perhaps you mean 'my position' that the supernatural is ridiculous. Advancing a meaningless semantic artifact as an evidence-bereft theory of non-nature is insanely ridiculous. I cannot imagine any scientific experiment which would dignify this notion with the semblance of meaning.

To the extent that the universe is now defined in science as all that can be observed or is ever likely to be observed, beyond observable could be said to be 'beyond' the universe. But this in no way is meant to suggest supernaturalness, which remains meaningless. I suppose I should say meaningless so far, to leave open the possibility that meaning might in the future be forthcoming.

"Peter Preston (and anyone else interested) - a critical note on our discussion. It began when you wrote (6 Dec/2.49pm) :
"Contributor bunkers says: 'Well, we are all agnostic. None of us knows whether there's a God...' Are you quite certain that you are not stating here what you simply don't know, sir?"

Then you add, sir:
"You avoided saying whether or not you agreed with what "bunker says". Your question was not about "what bunker says" at all. It was about what bunker (or anyone else) can or cannot know - in spite of the fact that I never claimed to "know" anything."

You are mistaken there, sir. The question was precisely about what you had written. It was not, as you suggest that it was, about "what bunker (or anyone else) can or cannot know " except insofar as you had included that subject in your statement - for which, it seemed to me, you lacked any kind of logical or intellectual authority.
I accordingly asked more than once what logical premisses had led you to your conclusion.
However you seemed to declare yourself 'exasperated' by being asked such questions and so I naturally refrain from continuing to ask.

However now you have clarified the whole matter, sir, for which many thanks. I had been concerned that perhaps any casual or intellectually easily led readers, reading your assertion that "None of us knows whether there's a God" might have believed that you were therein asserting some kind of eternal truth, too self-evident to need the support of logical reasoning.
Now however you kindly remove any such risk by confessing that you " never claimed to "know" anything" describing those two propositions instead as "my firm opinion".
Thank you, sir; your candour is refreshing and very welcome.
I wish you and yours a very happy and peaceful Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

I am not sure where this post will be read--the Internet is very confusing to us old folk--however, by accident I saw Peter Hitchens talking to whatshisname the alcofrolic on tv recently----, just to say I completely agree with Peter --I could happily drink myself to death and blame it on a disease, instead I work out how to either include or exclude alcohol in my life, which means I work out how to not be a burden on society and also get some better hobbies in my life other than drinking and moaning----! Where has common sense and personal responsibility gone? A disease--well have dose of cancer , old boy! Or Parkinsons, you will soon see what a real disease is!

I fear, though, that the individuals convinced of their sightings of ghosts will have done so entirely on their own, and probably at night. The smart-phone cameras with which they ordinarily would have whipped out and taken pictures of anything and everything happening before their eyes will either have been mysteriously inoperative or on the table in the kitchen at the time. The 'ghost' will not of course have lingered giving the sight-ee time to summon a neighbour, and so on. You follow my drift.

The ghost sightings fall within the pale of flying saucer sightings. It would take a million earth generations of time to get here even from the nearest star, and if the aliens could still remember why they had set out - presumably from fragile-as-dust recordings onboard the millions of years-old ship - to dart about hither and thither frightening only gullible individuals, always on their own, is preposterous.

So again the question to oneself: Did I just see a flying saucer arrived after 40 million years from the third star on the left? Or was I mistaken?

Just to clarify, I certainly wasn't rubbishing your point of view. I genuinely thought you had some method of calculating the probability of the existence of ghosts. When it became clear that you didn't, I was confirming that you were stating your opinion. I'm glad it works for you as a fact.

You ask me for an argument "which renders the notion of 'supernatural' non-ridiculous."

Pointless. Any account of a supernatural experience I relate to you will be met with ridicule. If I relate, for example, the story my friend told me, you'll say either (a) he's lying, (b) he's mistaken or (c) he was hallucinating.

We'll then, probably, go down the path of "science doesn't require this as an explanation" or "science hasn't uncovered any evidence of this." And such like.

So, short of me carrying out a laboratory experiment or something of that nature, I really don't see what would lead you to reconsider your "plainly ridiculous" position?

Peter Preston (and anyone else interested) - a critical note on our discussion. It began when you wrote (6 Dec/2.49pm) :

"Contributor bunkers says: 'Well, we are all agnostic. None of us knows whether there's a God...' Are you quite certain that you are not stating here what you simply don't know, sir?"

That was a clever move. You avoided saying whether or not you agreed with what "bunker says". Your question was not about "what bunker says" at all. It was about what bunker (or anyone else) can or cannot know - in spite of the fact that I never claimed to "know" anything. (And I was stupid enough to allow myself to be drawn into such a discussion. I shall try to be more wary next time!)

That we are all agnostic (lacking knowledge) and that consequently no one knows whether there's a God - that is my firm opinion. And I shall continue to say so because I believe it to be true. If anyone disagrees, no problem. But then let's be hearing their arguments.

For those who can force themselves to listen to BBC Radio 4, there is the first of four programmes concerning unusual events, starting with people who are convinced they have seen a ghost; 3.30pm, this Tuesday.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.